An Integrated Rural-Urban governance model The case study of cities in the northern part of Ilam province

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of Geography, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Geography, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran


The study of the plans shows that many development plans have failed due to one-dimensional thinking and not considering the relationship between the city and the countryside and the lack of integrated management. Not taking into account the relationship between the city and the countryside and the lack of interaction between urban and rural managers has been an obstacle to the formation of integrated management, and the result has been the polarization of development, regional imbalance, rural emigration, rapid and unplanned growth of cities. In this regard, the current research has been conducted to present an integrated rural-urban governance model for the cities of the northern area of Ilam province. For this purpose, 9 indicators of coherence and synthesis, spatial coherence, interaction and the link between urban management and rural management, seeking participation, consensus orientation, accountability, accountability, justice and equality and transparency were evaluated with appropriate indicators. The research method is descriptive-analytical. The statistical population is city managers and city and village councils, among which 322 people were selected as a statistical sample. Data have been analyzed using the structural equation model and pls software. Examining the coefficients of the path shows that the interaction and link between rural and urban management (synergy) have the highest score with a coefficient of 0.854, and the index of spatial cohesion is ranked second with a coefficient of 0.839. The synthesis Cohesion Index with a coefficient of 0.791 has the third degree of influence on the formation of integrated rural-urban governance and the participation index with 0.770, the consensus index with 0.728, the accountability index of 0.696, the accountability index with 0.678, the transparency index with 0.637 and the justice and equality index with 0.604 are placed in the fourth to ninth place respectively in the degree of influence on the establishment of integrated rural-urban governance
Extended Abstract
Economic, social, and cultural developments in recent times, especially in the last few decades of the twentieth century, have led to widespread reactions and socio-political restructuring at various levels of government and the emergence of new types of organizational communication (and perspectives). One of these views was the theory of good governance, which since the late 1990s, international policy, economic and political institutions have identified as the key to the development conundrum. But one of the main challenges in achieving good governance and institutionalizing this model in urban governance is how to achieve this model. In this regard, the integrated management approach has been considered one of the most important and pivotal factors in achieving good governance. Concerning the study area, the dominant planning thinking in Ilam province, due to macro-national planning, is to have one-dimensional thinking (with city sovereignty) in development planning. Ignorance of urban-rural relations and lack of relations and interaction between urban and rural managers has been an obstacle to the formation of integrated management in this province, which has led to polarization of development, regional imbalance, and the gap between urban and rural development. Also, migration and rapid growth have been formed in Ilam province's cities without a plan. Accordingly, the present study has been conducted in order to find a suitable answer to the question: What is the appropriate model of integrated rural-urban governance in the northern part of Ilam province?
The present research is descriptive-analytical in terms of applied nature and in terms of the method of implementation and addressing the research issue with a combined method (quantitative and qualitative). Data collection has been done based on two ways, including documentary and field. The validity of the components is obtained through face validity. The
statistical population of the study includes the managers of the fifth term of urban and rural areas (including members of the Islamic Council of villages and villagers, members of the Islamic Council of cities and mayors and deputy mayors), district and governor, as well as urban and rural managers in the fourth term and local elites (2043 people). For the sample size, 132 questionnaires were completed by urban managers and elites, and 190 questionnaires were completed by rural managers. Research variables in the form of socio-cultural, administrative-institutional, physical, economic dimensions and indicators of cohesion and integration, spatial cohesion, management link and organizational synergy, stakeholder participation, responsibility, accountability, consensus, and justice and equality, have been reviewed and analyzed. To analyze the data, SPSS and Smart-PLS software programs (in order to determine the relationships between indicators and the intensity of this relationship) were used to design an integrated rural-urban governance model.
 Results and discussion
The study of path coefficients obtained from Smart-PLS software shows that among the obtained coefficients, the effect of interaction and link between rural and urban management (synergy) with the coefficient of 0.854 has the highest score and indicates that the highest impact on the formation of integrated rural-urban governance. Spatial cohesion index with a coefficient of 0.839 has an effect on the formation of integrated rural-urban governance. Combinatorial Cohesion Index with a coefficient of 0.791 has the effect on the formation of integrated rural-urban governance. In addition, participation index with a coefficient of 0.770, consensus orientation index with a coefficient of 0.728, accountability index with a coefficient of 0.696, responsibility index with a coefficient of 0.678, transparency index with a coefficient of 0.637 and justice and equality index with a coefficient 0.604, respectively, have affected the formation of integrated rural-urban governance.
The results indicate that from the point of view of community members, the link and interaction between rural and urban management is the most important indicator in forming the model of integrated rural-urban governance. Then, the spatial cohesion index is in the second priority. Coherence and composition is the third indicator in terms of importance in forming integrated governance. Participatory and consensus-seeking are recognized as the fourth and fifth factors, respectively, and accountability is ranked sixth in terms of effectiveness. The accountability index is in seventh place in terms of importance in the formation of integrated governance, and the least effective factor is the index of transparency, justice and equality. It seems that in order to improve the current situation, the activities and tasks of the management, which are currently operating in a heterogeneous, island-like and sectoral manner, are needed. And also has led to a lack of functional and spatial integration
and division, so it should be delegated purposefully and with effective planning and organization in the region to prevent division and fragmentation. In addition, considering the socio-economic, structural-functional, legal-policy conditions, as well as the existence of existing attitudes and views towards integrated rural-urban governance, planning and management strategies, must be operationalized.
There is no funding support.
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work.
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.


  1. Abdali, A., Zabihi, H., & Majedi, H. (2019). Explaining the Conceptual Framework of Good Urban Governance Based on Integrated Urban Management (Case Study: Tehran Metropolis). New Attitudes in Human Geography, 12 (1), 309-293. [in Persian].
  2. Ahmadi, M., & Cheraghi, M. (2018). Analysis of Effective Factors in Rural Good Governance with Focus on Rural manager (Dehyar), (Case study: Chaipare Bala County, Zanjan Township). Quarterly Geography (Regional Planning), 7 (4), 33-44. [in Persian].
  3. Alvani, S. M. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Synergy of Individual, Culture and Society. Selected Management Magazine, 92, 37-31. [in Persian].
  4. Azimi Amoli, J., & Rokanuddin Eftekhari, A. (2014). Rural Governance (Sustainable Development Management). First Edition, Tehran: Samat Publications. [in Persian].
  5. Darban astane, A. (2015). Challenges of establishment of rural municipality in Iranian small and scattered village. Journal of Rural Research, 6 (1), 209-232. [in Persian].
  6. Doyran, I., Kazemian, Gh., Meshkini, A., Eftekhari, A. R., & Kalhernia, B. (2012) Integrated management in organizing informal settlements in the middle cities of Iran. Journal of Urban Management, 10 (30), 68-53. [in Persian].
  7. Eftekhari, A. (2015). Rural Planning Challenges in Iran. the Third National Conference on Rural Development in Iran with Emphasis on the Islamic-Iranian Model of Progress, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran. [in Persian].
  8. Estelaji, A. (2002) A Study and Analysis of Rural-Regional Development Approaches and Strategies. Jihad, 250 - 251, 39-30. [in Persian].
  9. Firooznia, G., & Garani Arani, B. (2016). Using Stakeholder Analysis in the Process of Management and Planning System of Rural Development. Journal of Rural Research, 9 (38), 895-915. [in Persian].
  10. Hendriks, F. (2014) Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials, Shifts and Values. Urban Affairs Review, 50 (4), 553- 576.
  11. Hudson, R. (2004) Addressing the Regional Problem: Changing Perspectives in Geography and on Regions. International Practices, Chapter 2, Foreword by Gerry Stoker. Springer VS.
  12. Jacka, T. (2016) Women's activism, overseas funded participatory development, and governance: A case study from China. Women's Studies International Forum, 33 (2), 99-112
  13. Jimmy, Ch. (2016). Rural and Urban Development. Sustainable Rural-Urban Linkages.
  14. Meshkini, A., & Moazzen, S. (2015). Good Urban Governance Analysis in Cities Sustainability Case Study: Ajabshir City. journal of Environmental Based Territorial planning, 8 (29), 99-132. [in Persian].
  15. Mirzaei Qaleh, F., Kalantari, B., Molaeei, M., & Azmi, A. (2013). Analysis of urban-rural relations in the rate of development of rural villages in the suburbs of Harsin city. Journal of housing and rural environment, 32 (143), 100-89. [in Persian].
  16. Mousavi, S. A., & Darban Astaneh, M. (2013). New Rural Management; In search of a suitable solution for the development of rural areas. First Edition, Tehran: Qalamestan Honar Publishing. [in Persian].
  17. Norouzi, A., & Ebrahimi, E. (2018). Investigating realization of good governance indicators in rural areas of Lenjan County. Journal of Physical Development Planning, 32 (143), 93-109. [in Persian].
  18. Padash, H., Jahanshahi, B., & Sadeghin, A. (2007). Components and Indices of Urban Governance. Journal of Urban Studies, 6 (19), 72-79. [in Persian].
  19. Pierre, J. (2015). Whose city is this anyway? Tensions in urban governance, good and otherwise. The Quest for Good Urban Governance, Theoretical Refl ections.
  20. Rahmani Fazli, A., Muzaffar, S., & Jahanbakhsh, A. (2015). Theoretical Foundations of Good Governance in the New Rural Management Process. Journal of Urban Management, 14 (38), 53-43. [in Persian].
  21. Rezvani, M. R. (2009). Introduction to Rural Development Planning in Iran. Third Edition Tehran: Qoms Publishing. [in Persian].
  22. Roknaldin Eftekhari, A., Azimi Amoli, J., Pourtaheri, M., & Ahmadypour, Z. (2012).  Presentation of an Appropriate Rural Good Governance Model in Iran Case study: Rural Areas of Mazandaran Provience in Iran. International Quarterly of Geopolitics, 8 (26), 1-28. [in Persian].
  23. Rotberg, R. (2014). Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 27, 511–518.
  24. Rumbach, A. (2016). Decentralization and small cities: Towards more effective urban disaster governance?. Journal of Habitat International, 52, 35-42.
  25. Sarafi, M., & Nejati, N. (2015). New Regionalism Approach for Improving the System of Spatial Development Management in Iran. Human Geography Research Quarterly, 13 (34), 857-874. [in Persian].
  26. Seifoldini, F., Panahandehkhah, M.., & Ghadami, M. (2010). Survey and Analysis of Limits & Challenges of Regional Development Planning in Iran. Human Geography Research Quarterly, 42(73), 83-98. [in Persian].
  27. Server, R., Ashtiani Iraqi, M.R., & Akbari, M. (2017). Analysis of Factors Affecting the Feasibility of Integrated Urban Management Case Study (Tehran Metropolis). Iranian Journal of the Geographical Association, 15(52), 52-37. [in Persian].
  28. Sharifzadegan, M. H., Kooshaki, H. (2013). Strategic Spatial Planning for Integrated Regional Governance. Journal of Urban Management, 13 (34), 296-273. [in Persian].
  29. Sharifzadeh, E., Sheikhi, A., & Ajza Shokouhi, M. (2018). Assessment of good governance in the stability of urban neighborhoods of Piranshahr. Journal of Sustainable City, 1 (3), 109-128. [in Persian].
  30. Sheikhi, A. (2014). Piranshahr city development strategies with CDS approach. Master Thesis in Geography and Urban Planning, Supervisor: Dr. Karamatollah Ziari, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran. [in Persian].
  31. Taqvaei, A. A., Tajdar, R. (2009). An Introduction to Good Urban Governance in an Analytical Approach. Urban Management, 23, 58-45. [in Persian].
  32. Van den, D. (2015). The Quest for Good Urban Governance, Theoretical Reflections and International Practices. Foreword by Gerry Stoker, Springer VS.
  33. Woreda, H. (2017). Decentralized Good Governance in Rural Land Administration: The Case of. IJEDR, 5 (2), 131-142.